Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: NASA discovers new life!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317

    NASA discovers new life!

    Hours before their special news conference today, the cat is out of the bag: NASA has discovered a completely new life form that doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently living in planet Earth. This changes everything.

    At their conference today, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe Simon will announce that they have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today. Instead of using phosphorus, the bacteria uses arsenic. All life on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same.
    source - full article

    so is this alien bacteria?
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest
    so, this alien bacteria, can we eat it or burn it in our cars?

  3. #3
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    so, this alien bacteria, can we eat it or burn it in our cars?
    No. This is the bacteria that was long ago fortold. It will lead to the arsenic-zombie uprising.


    Sorry ... I couldn't help myself. Too many hours reading sci-fi.


    John

  4. #4
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    I've held the theory that life 'happens' everywhere. Life is a natural state and can and will happen if given even the remotest possibility. With this I'd say our universe is probably teaming with life. From single celled organisms to more complex lifeforms. Of course, given the distances I doubt we'll ever contact any for a long long time.

  5. #5
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    No. This is the bacteria that was long ago fortold. It will lead to the arsenic-zombie uprising.


    Sorry ... I couldn't help myself. Too many hours reading sci-fi.


    John
    I knew it! Zombozies in the livingroom at 3 am coming soon!

    added on edit; figures, new life, and they got no free gasoline either.
    Last edited by McX; 12-02-2010 at 04:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481

    Great News

    More scum to choose from in 2012?
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by gsx1138 View Post
    I've held the theory that life 'happens' everywhere. Life is a natural state and can and will happen if given even the remotest possibility. With this I'd say our universe is probably teaming with life. From single celled organisms to more complex lifeforms. Of course, given the distances I doubt we'll ever contact any for a long long time.
    don't you mean hypothesis? or have you proven your hypothesis with empirical results or observations? or seen others results or observations to show that the idea that life happens everywhere is worthy of the title of theory? Hypothesis can be just general observation, logic, extrapolation and the like. Theories have proof.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Evidence, not proof.

    I hesitate to say any more, lest someone point out a word I got wrong.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    don't you mean hypothesis? or have you proven your hypothesis with empirical results or observations? or seen others results or observations to show that the idea that life happens everywhere is worthy of the title of theory? Hypothesis can be just general observation, logic, extrapolation and the like. Theories have proof.
    No, theories have evidence and can be used to explain or predict natural phenomena. You're probably thinking of a theorem
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    A life form that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus as a basic building block for DNA would have a very low probability happening--about the same low probability that life forms considered "normal" would have.

    Arsenic is a heavy metal and is relatively common in the universe--it is made from fusion in stars, and gets spread around when those stars go super-nova. It is estimated that Arsenic is the 39th most common element in the universe.

    It is poisonous to phosphorus-based life forms because it is very siilar to phosphorus and it interrupts or inhibits phosphorus-related metabolic processes.

    On a planet like Earth, which has a very diverse chemical makeup in it's crust, and a very diverse set of environments, life forms like this are actually more likely to occur than not. Life is precocious and pernicious, and tends to adapt to adverse environments.

    To think that such a life form might occur out in space on some other planet isn't a big stretch. The stretch is to believe that all life in the universe must be just like the majority of life on earth. The universe is chemically much more variable than Earth, so it only stands to reason that life forms on other planets may very well be COMPLETELY different from ours, biochemically.

    The big mystery with this bacteria is why did it take them this long to find it. The answer to that mystery is simple--nobody thought to look for it before...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    No, theories have evidence and can be used to explain or predict natural phenomena. You're probably thinking of a theorem
    no a theorem is:
    # a proposition deducible from basic postulates
    # an idea accepted as a demonstrable truth

    I see them in math more than anything else.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Evidence, not proof.

    I hesitate to say any more, lest someone point out a word I got wrong.
    I stand corrected. Remember though, words have meaning and far too many people use theory in place of hypothesis. Gravity is "just a theory". String BS is a hypothesis (yes note that even well known physicists will name things falsely to try and make people believe) The earth being 6000 years old is a hypothesis.

    Now I just hope this doesn't devolve the thread into an argument about the gravity of earth being only 6000 years old.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Oh, you were correct in your correction. I just couldn't resist joining in on the fun.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    I knew it! Zombozies in the livingroom at 3 am coming soon!
    They're welcome to it. Meanwhile, I've got the pillow staked out and am retreating to a good night's sleep.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    No. This is the bacteria that was long ago fortold. It will lead to the arsenic-zombie uprising.

    John

    So THIS is the apocalypse we're all practicing for?

    Hit. Them. In. The head!
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  16. #16
    Regular Member usmcbess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Labadie, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    A life form that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus as a basic building block for DNA would have a very low probability happening--about the same low probability that life forms considered "normal" would have.

    Arsenic is a heavy metal and is relatively common in the universe--it is made from fusion in stars, and gets spread around when those stars go super-nova. It is estimated that Arsenic is the 39th most common element in the universe.

    It is poisonous to phosphorus-based life forms because it is very siilar to phosphorus and it interrupts or inhibits phosphorus-related metabolic processes.

    On a planet like Earth, which has a very diverse chemical makeup in it's crust, and a very diverse set of environments, life forms like this are actually more likely to occur than not. Life is precocious and pernicious, and tends to adapt to adverse environments.

    To think that such a life form might occur out in space on some other planet isn't a big stretch. The stretch is to believe that all life in the universe must be just like the majority of life on earth. The universe is chemically much more variable than Earth, so it only stands to reason that life forms on other planets may very well be COMPLETELY different from ours, biochemically.

    The big mystery with this bacteria is why did it take them this long to find it. The answer to that mystery is simple--nobody thought to look for it before...
    Wow I would say about that almost 100% of your reply is speculative. I take it you are of the cult of evolution.?
    We really don't know to much about the rest of the universe so to say anything is common or uncommon outside of our galaxy is a stretch of the imagination.
    We do not know what stars are from impiricle evidence. All we can observe of stars is there light and signals they give off. For that matter we cannot even be sure that our sun is a star (although it most likely is) because we have no other "star" close enought to make visual and other observations. We have no clue what goes on in stars only speculations. Most scientists cant even agree if the sun is burning by fussion or not!

    But overall the real question when you break it down is how did life arise from non-living matter?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I am a Christian. I take the Bible literally. I believe that God created everything we can observe. I also taught high school physics.

    That being said, it is foolish to dismiss science, its observations, and its conclusions.

    Our Sun is a star. The observations of the electromagnetic radiation it emits as compared to other stars establishes this as a proposition that would be foolish to deny.

    As Bible-believers, it is incumbent upon us defend our faith from narrow-minded assaults based on science. But, neither can I stand narrow-minded assaults on science.

    The narrow-mindedness arises out of a belief that science and faith are at irreconcilable conflict with each other. They aren't. When those who would defend the faith attack science, they foster the misimpression of the existence of that conflict and end up hurting the faith by making science appear to be a faith-slayer.

    Instead, we should be looking to faith where it provides answers, and science where it does. I don't look to science to determine what God wants me to do. And I don't look to faith find out how to safely navigate steps.

    God created the rules about how our physical universe works. I kinda thinks He wants us to learn as much about them as we are able, in order that we are effective in using His universe to bring about His will. To dismiss valid science is to work against God's will.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-06-2010 at 09:50 AM. Reason: Corrected a tense error.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post

    ...........I don't look to science to determine what God wants me to do. And I don't look to faith find out how to safely navigate steps.............
    This line, is brilliant sir,simply brilliant.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcbess View Post
    Wow I would say about that almost 100% of your reply is speculative. I take it you are of the cult of evolution.?
    We really don't know to much about the rest of the universe so to say anything is common or uncommon outside of our galaxy is a stretch of the imagination.
    We do not know what stars are from impiricle evidence. All we can observe of stars is there light and signals they give off. For that matter we cannot even be sure that our sun is a star (although it most likely is) because we have no other "star" close enought to make visual and other observations. We have no clue what goes on in stars only speculations. Most scientists cant even agree if the sun is burning by fussion or not!

    But overall the real question when you break it down is how did life arise from non-living matter?
    Obligxkcd


    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Gravity is only 6000 years old?

  21. #21
    Regular Member sFe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Laurinburg, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Gravity is only 6000 years old?
    Gravity is a cultist following too, guess you never heard of 'intelligent falling':


    Quote Originally Posted by theonion.com
    KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

    img
    Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

    "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

    Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

    Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

    According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

    The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

    "We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

    Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

    "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

    Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

    "Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

    "Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

    Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

    "Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. — Carl Sagan

    When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts

  22. #22
    Regular Member usmcbess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Labadie, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    195

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am a Christian. I take the Bible literally. I believe that God created everything we can observe. I also taught high school physics.

    That being said, it is foolish to dismiss science, its observations, and its conclusions.

    Our Sun is a star. The observations of the electromagnetic radiation it emits as compared to other stars establishes this as a proposition that would be foolish to deny.

    As Bible-believers, it is incumbent upon us defend our faith from narrow-minded assaults based on science. But, neither can I stand narrow-minded assaults on science.

    The narrow-mindedness arises out of a belief that science and faith are at irreconcilable conflict with each other. They aren't. When those who would defend the faith attack science, they foster the misimpression of the existence of that conflict and end up hurting the faith by making science appear to be a faith-slayer.

    Instead, we should be looking to faith where it provides answers, and science where it does. I don't look to science to determine what God wants me to do. And I don't look to faith find out how to safely navigate steps.

    God created the rules about how our physical universe works. I kinda thinks He wants us to learn as much about them as we are able, in order that we are effective in using His universe to bring about His will. To dismiss valid science is to work against God's will.
    Like I said i would venture to say that our sun is a star but there is no empiricle evidence that it is. Anything else that we could compare it to is to far away to observe anything other than the color of its light and radiation emissions. But I will reiterate it most likely is.
    I love science! The problem is that there is alot of religion mixed with science in the textbooks. Namely the the religion of uniformitarian evolution. Evolution has done nothing to further any area of science it is only a hinderance to free thinking and study.
    I am an unashamed young earth, literal, 6 day creationist. I deny such heresy as the gap theory, day-age theory, and theistic evolution.
    This man has had a standing $250,000 challenge to anyone who can provide empirical evidence proving the theory of evolution to be true. http://www.drdino.com/250k-offer
    CAN YOU PROVE YOUR RELIGION RIGHT AND COLLECT THE MONEY?

    Just to be clear as to not cause undue offense, the last part of that is not directed toward you EYE95.
    Last edited by usmcbess; 12-07-2010 at 03:25 AM. Reason: clarification

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcbess View Post
    Like I said i would venture to say that our sun is a star but there is no empiricle evidence that it is. Anything else that we could compare it to is to far away to observe anything other than the color of its light and radiation emissions. But I will reiterate it most likely is.
    I love science! The problem is that there is alot of religion mixed with science in the textbooks. Namely the the religion of uniformitarian evolution. Evolution has done nothing to further any area of science it is only a hinderance to free thinking and study.
    I am an unashamed young earth, literal, 6 day creationist. I deny such heresy as the gap theory, day-age theory, and theistic evolution.
    This man has had a standing $250,000 challenge to anyone who can provide empirical evidence proving the theory of evolution to be true. http://www.drdino.com/250k-offer
    CAN YOU PROVE YOUR RELIGION RIGHT AND COLLECT THE MONEY?

    Just to be clear as to not cause undue offense, the last part of that is not directed toward you EYE95.
    Why not just take a read through the talk origins FAQ? You can start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    usmcbess: I still have to take exception with your statement that there is no empirical evidence that our Sun is a star. There is. As I mentioned in my last post, we have observed the electromagnetic radiation coming from the Sun and from stars. The unique signature, evidencing the functioning of our Sun as a star, differs from that of other stars only as much as stars differ from other stars. They are essentially the same. As a matter of fact, our Sun is a very ordinary star--ordinary in size, ordinary in age, ordinary in color. Our Sun is not a very unique star other than it being ours.

    There is plenty of evidence for evolution. There is just no known example of evolution from one species to another--which would be necessary for evolution to occur as many claim it does.

    Even if transpecial evolution were a possible explanation of how Man came about, it still would not mean that Creation did not happen. A God capable of creating our entire universe is capable of creating a universe that appears to be in the process of evolving.

    Science looks at the evidence at hand and tries to extrapolate backwards to determine how we got where we are. Science is ill-suited to this task. It is most effective at making predictions about the future. However, based upon the way things move forward into the future, we often make educated assumptions as to the path followed from the past to arrive where we are now.

    Such backward-looking extrapolation cannot reasonably take into account the infinite number of possibilities created by intervening events. For example, you are standing along Interstate 10 near Phoenix. A car is approaching you from the east at 70 mph. If you take all the observations you have made and try to determine where it came from, tracing it back along the path your observations told you it traveled, and then extended that path backwards, it would be reasonable to assume the car came from New Orleans. However, the car could've have entered its observed path in San Antonio or Mobile or El Paso, arriving at those points having followed an infinite number of other paths.

    Since science cannot consider an infinite possible set of paths, it naturally focuses on the extrapolated path. This is reasonable to do. It does not produce truth about our origin, but produces a model that offers a reasonable explanation of how physical laws could explain how we got here.

    That is how science serves us: it teaches us how things move forward in time in our universe (which is necessary when trying to successfully navigate stairs). Since science does not take into account intervening events when looking backwards, science cannot say that Creation was not an intervening event that put our universe on the path that it is on now, causing it appear to have come from someplace else instead.

    I say all of that to say this: One cannot honestly and intellectually use science to dismiss religion. One should not use religion to dismiss science.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sc0tt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Asheboro, NC
    Posts
    315
    first true alien lifeform, but can we call it alive
    -----------------
    --SCOTT

    Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is beg enough to take everything you have, the course of history shows that as government incresses - liberty decreases."


    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not a lawyer, no content in the above post should considered legal advice

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •